(de-news.net) – German officials have presented a positive assessment of current immigration policy, emphasizing reduced asylum arrivals and expanded deportation measures. The Federal Chancellery Minister as well as the Interior Minister outlined legislative reforms aimed at accelerating removals. This includes new mechanisms for third-country transfers and increased operational efficiency. The steps must be considered as central to national security and migration control.
The head of the Federal Chancellery, Thorsten Frei (CDU) offered a broadly favorable assessment of the federal government’s immigration policy, asserting that a substantive policy shift had been achieved under the current administration. In his remarks, he maintained that the number of asylum seekers had declined markedly, interpreting this development as evidence of a recalibrated migration framework. Within this context, he explicitly commended Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) for what he described as effective implementation strategies, which included the deportation of criminal offenders to countries such as Afghanistan and Syria. From Frei’s perspective, the government sought to demonstrate that measurable policy outcomes could be achieved when key regulatory ‘levers’ were deliberately and appropriately adjusted within the governing system. He further underscored the importance of preventing a recurrence of circumstances comparable to the 2015 refugee crisis, arguing that the current set of measures should be understood as reflecting not merely administrative adjustments, but a more fundamental and practical reorientation of migration policy. Taken together, his statements framed the present course as evidence of tangible policy transformation rather than incremental modification alone.
Return hubs and third-country transfers proposed
Simultaneously, Dobrindt presented a policy initiative aimed at significantly expediting the deportation of rejected asylum applicants through legislative reform designed to reduce what he characterized as ‘structural obstacles to removal operations.’ He argued that the migration enforcement system required greater procedural efficiency, pointing to recurrent practical failures in return operations. These, he explained, had frequently arisen due to difficulties such as the inability to locate individuals subject to removal, as well as broader operational and legal constraints that impeded searches and enforcement actions. Within the proposed framework, he also envisaged expanded mechanisms for transferring individuals to third countries in cases where direct repatriation is not possible due to non-cooperation from countries of origin. This approach includes the planned development of so-called ‘return hubs’ located outside the European Union, intended to provide additional logistical and administrative capacity for managing such cases within a structured external framework.
Dobrindt further noted that exploratory discussions were underway with a range of third countries in coordination with European partners, while deliberately withholding specific details regarding these technical-level negotiations. He did not identify any potential partner states, emphasizing the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the discussions. In addition, he refrained from defining concrete quantitative targets for increased deportations, instead observing that returns had risen by approximately 20 percent in the previous year, although this upward trend had not been sustained in the current year. Even so, he indicated that the annual number of deportations remained at roughly 24,000 cases. Against this background, he highlighted the renewed implementation of returns of convicted criminals to Afghanistan and Syria, noting that agreements with Afghan authorities had enabled regular deportations via scheduled flights rather than relying exclusively on charter operations. Dobrindt argued that such measures would be pursued consistently over time, maintaining that the removal of offenders constituted a direct contribution to strengthening national security and public safety outcomes.
Audio: TTSFree
